IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. and. ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED Defendant :November 5, 6, 21
|
|
- Miles Pope
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. 522 OF 1999 BETWEEN: SAMIN GEORGE Plaintiff and ADMIRALTY TRANSPORT COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Appearances: Mr. Arthur Williams for the plaintiff Mr. Samuel Commissiong for the defendant :November 5, 6, JUDGMENT ALLEYNE J. [1] The defendant owns and operates a ferry boat which shuttles passengers between St. Vincent and Bequia. The vessel runs a scheduled service, leaving its respective ports at fixed hours for the crossing of one hour each way. The vessel has a lower deck, by way of which passengers enter and leave, a second deck on which are located the restaurant and bar, and an upper deck on which passengers are seated for the crossing. The vessel is of steel construction, with steel decks and stairways connecting the decks to each other. The stairways each have a handrail on either side, constructed of steel, and at the top of each stairway is a 1
2 warning sign painted in white on a red ground, warning passengers and others to exercise caution and to hold on to the hand rails when using the stairs. [2] The plaintiff, who is a Syrian who had at the relevant time lived in St. Vincent and worked as a salesman for about four years, was a regular passenger on the vessel, making the round trip journey three times a week in connection with his occupation as a salesman. He was a fare-paying passenger. The plaintiff speaks the English language with only limited fluency, and claims to be unable to read or write English, notwithstanding that he has been in business in St. Vincent for several years. [3] On October 13, 1998, the plaintiff, along with a number of other persons, was a passenger on the Admiralty 11 on its scheduled journey to Bequia leaving St. Vincent at a.m.. He sat on the upper deck on the journey. [4] As is not unusual, it rained in the course of the journey. One of the stairways by way of which passengers access and leave the upper deck is uncovered and gets wet when it rains. It is this stairway that the plaintiff chose to use when preparing to leave the vessel towards the end of the journey. This was not the first time it had rained during the plaintiff s frequent crossings to and from Bequia. [5] It is disputed whether the incident leading to this claim occurred before or after the vessel had docked at Bequia. The plaintiff claimed that at the relevant time the vessel had already docked. However, the captain of the vessel, Elvis Gooding, and the defendant s witness Michelle Lully both assert that the vessel had not yet, at the time that the plaintiff began to descend the stairway, rounded the point into the harbour, and was several minutes away from docking. [6] Lully s husband is apparently a close friend of Gooding, who is both Captain of the vessel and owner of the defendant company, which owns and operates the vessel. The witness Lully nevertheless claims to be no more than an acquaintance of 2
3 Gooding. However that may be, I believe the witnesses for the defendant on the question as to the location of the vessel at the time of the accident. [7] On attempting to descend the stairway, the plaintiff slipped and fell, suffering quite severe injuries from which he has not yet fully recovered. Contrary to what the defendant pleaded in its defence, the plaintiff was not at the time carrying a heavy bag, but at most had a waist pouch around his waist. [8] The plaintiff alleges that the slippery and therefore dangerous condition of the wet stairway was the cause of his otherwise unexplained fall. He claimed that after his fall he observed oil in water at the foot of the stairway, but there is no evidence to suggest that there was oil on the steps, or that the presence of oil contributed in any way to the accident. The witness Gooding, Captain of the vessel, was emphatic that there is no reason for oil to be anywhere in that part of the vessel, and that indeed there was no oil present. In any event, I do not believe that the presence of oil contributed in any way to the accident. [9] In essence, the plaintiff s claim is based on the doctrine res ipsa loquitur. On the other hand, the defendant says that the negligence of the plaintiff in the manner in which he attempted to descend the stairway was the cause of his misfortune. [10] The defendant s witness, Lully, who was sitting on the upper deck of the vessel very near to the stairway, gave evidence that in descending the stairway, the plaintiff held on to the side railings, swung both legs out, and attempted to slide down the rails with his feet off the ground. That as a result of this manoeuvre, he slipped and fell. After his fall, several other persons gathered around him and gave him assistance. It does not appear that any other passenger fell on the stairway on that day or, so far as the evidence goes, at any other time. [11] The plaintiff, who at the time of trial was 38 years old and would have been about 35 at the date of the incident, says that at his age he would not do such a thing. In 3
4 cross-examination he said simply I step. I fall. That s all. I don t know otherwise. [12] I was impressed by the evidence of Michelle Lully, who struck me as a witness of truth. I am satisfied, from her evidence and the evidence of the captain, Gooding, that there were signs at strategic locations warning of the necessity for caution in descending the stairs, and of the need to hold on to the handrails in doing so. Although there are discrepancies with regard to the precise location of these signs, I am satisfied that they were adequate in size and colour, and were readily visible to all users of the stairway. In that respect, I am satisfied that the defendants used all reasonable and necessary means to bring to the attention of passengers the necessary precautions in the use of the stairway in the circumstances. [13] The vessel routinely carried passengers of different nationalities, including particularly French and German speaking passengers, and it was suggested to the witness Gooding that it was insufficient that the warning be in the English language only. The plaintiff claims to read Arabic. It cannot be expected that the vessel should carry warning signs in every language spoken by passengers or prospective passengers, and in my view it is sufficient that the warnings be painted in English, the official language of St. Vincent and the Grenadines. [14] I am not persuaded that there was oil present in that area, or that the presence of oil played any part in the accident. The plaintiff himself disclaimed the presence of oil on the steps, saying only that he saw traces of oil on the deck where he lay after the fall. I accept the assurance of the Captain, Gooding, that there was no oil in that part of the vessel. I find as a fact that there was water from rain on the steps and handrail of the vessel, and that in those circumstances the plaintiff s fall was contributed to by the reckless manner in which he appears to have attempted to descend the stairway. [15] Learned Counsel for the defendant in his closing argument pointed out that the plaintiff, a regular traveller on the vessel, was familiar with the vessel in all 4
5 conditions, including in particular in rainy conditions. The cause of the accident was the unusual and inappropriate manner in which the plaintiff used the stairway, and not any unusual danger resulting from the condition of the stairway. There is a duty on both parties in relation to the matter of safety. Counsel argued that the defendant had fully met its responsibilities in that regard, and that the accident was caused solely by the improper manner in which the plaintiff used the stairway, whereby he became a trespasser. [16] Counsel referred the court to Clerk & Lindsell on Torts 11 th edition, paragraph Counsel submitted that there are inherent difficulties in negotiating stairways on a moving vessel in wet conditions, of which the plaintiff ought to have been aware, and that it was his negligence in improperly using the stairway that caused the accident. [17] Learned Counsel referred to the case of Davies v De Havilland Aircraft Co. Ltd. [1950] 2 All ER 582, per Somervell L.J. if there was a slight depression in the concrete in which water collected when it rained so that the floor became slippery, I do not think that, on the evidence, that amounts to a breach of s.25(1). It would be impracticable to maintain passages and roads and pathways so that there was never a slippery place, especially after rain, on which a man might slip. Slipping is quite a common incident of life.. In my view, (his Lordship continued) the same general approach. leads me to hold that there was no breach of duty at common law. Counsel urged on the court the view expressed by Lord Somervell, with which I find myself in full agreement, that I find it impossible to say that the mere existence of that which I have found might have resulted in the plaintiff slipping indicates any failure to take reasonable care to protect those employed (or in the instant case invitees) from unnecessary risk. [18] The case of London Graving Dock Co. v Horton [1951] 2 All ER 1 at page 5 et seq. is a clear illustration of the principle stated by Lord Porter that 5
6 an invitor s duty to an invitee is to provide reasonably safe premises or else show that the invitee accepted the risk with full knowledge of the dangers involved. Admittedly, the duty of a master to his servant is higher than that of an invitor to his invitee. The duty, however, is not to prevent damage, but to use reasonable care to prevent it, and it has to be determined what is reasonable care. This problem is dealt with in the latter part of the statement of Willes, J., by which I understand him to mean: Even if there is unusual danger, the duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage may be performed by notice, lighting or guarding, and the recognition that the invitor may fulfil the obligations imposed on him by notice or lighting indicates that adequate warning to the invitee may be a compliance with the duty which is owed by the invitor. [19] In the same case Lord Normand, at page 10, adopted as of high authority the judgment of Lord Atkinson in Cavalier v Pope in which Lord Atkinson said of the leading case of Indermaur v Dames [1866] L.R. 1 C.P. 274 one of the essential facts necessary to bring a case within that principle (that warning is a discharge of the invitor s duty) is that the injured person must not have had knowledge or notice of the existence of the danger through which he has suffered. If he knows the danger and runs the risk he has no cause of action. His Lordship went on to say that When there is already knowledge, notice or warning will have no effect and the omission of it can do no harm. So, the defendant who has failed to give warning may yet succeed if he proves that the injured person had knowledge of the unusual danger. But whether it be knowledge gained without a warning or knowledge conveyed by a warning, it must be sufficient to avert the peril arising from the unusual danger. The knowledge must, therefore, be full knowledge of the nature and the extent of the danger. [20] Lord Oaksey put it in this way: The duty of an invitor to an invitee is to give him a fair warning of any danger on the premises which he cannot be expected to foresee. Premises inevitably contain a great variety of dangers, some great, some slight, some usual, some unusual, and it is a question of fact whether the danger is so slight or so usual that no warning is needed, or so great or so unusual that the invitee, with the actual knowledge of the premises 6
7 which he is known by the invitor to possess, ought, in the opinion of an ordinarily careful invitor, to be warned of it. (A)n invitor who invites someone onto his premises which are reasonably safe has committed no breach of duty, nor has he if the invitee knows the danger or has been adequately warned about it. (A)n occupier owes no duty to an invitee in respect of usual dangers, since the invitee is only entitled to expect that the invitor will take care to prevent damage from unusual danger, but where there is evidence of neglect, i.e., where there is danger which may be found by the tribunal to be unusual, it is a question of fact whether reasonable care has been taken by notice, lighting, guarding or otherwise, and, therefore, there has been no neglect. [21] Lord Mac Dermott was at one with the rest of the House of Lords in affirming the statement of the law in Indermaur as long regarded as an authoritative exposition of the duty owed by an invitor to his invitee. His Lordship then entered into an in depth analysis of the principle regarding the duty of care, the meaning of unusual danger, and the implications for the invitor viz a viz the invitee. His Lordship, at page 17 of the report, in a dissenting judgment, declares that The invitor s liability being in respect of danger of which he knows or ought to know, he is, at least, under an obligation to use reasonable care to make himself aware of defects that may injure his invitee. [22] His Lordship, at page 19, after undertaking an analysis of the case of Fairman v Perpetual Investment Buildng Society [1923] A.C. 74, whose facts are somewhat similar to the facts of the present case, and pointing to the trial judge s finding of fact that he did not think that he could possibly find that the staircase as a whole, or that this particular place could be described in plain English as dangerous, declared that It may be that this latter finding must be linked with the view that the claimant failed to see the obvious and was, therefore, the author of her own misfortune. But whether that be so or not, the other finding meant that the occupier did not know and ought not to have known of the defect, and on that ground alone, the claim of an invitee was bound to fail. 7
8 His Lordship continued: I am not entirely clear as to what exactly Lord Sumner intended to include in the present circumstances, but I think he must, at least, have had in mind the plaintiff s familiarity with the stairs, that they were well lighted and their condition was plain to be seen, and, also and this, I think, was implicit throughout the case that the kind of defect which had appeared was easily avoidable by people using the stairs. [23] His Lordship, in a comprehensive analysis, continued with reference to the judgment of Willes J.: Further, the terms he chose to use, particularly with regard to what he described as the question whether such reasonable care has been taken, by notice, lighting, guarding or otherwise seem to me to suggest that he would have been content in appropriate cases to leave it to the jury to find as a matter of fact whether the giving of notice amounted to the taking of reasonable care. That view, resting as it does on the text of the judgment, ought not to exclude other considerations, but, if well founded, it reaches beyond the immediate point to the heart of the controversy, for it means, not only that Willes, J. had more in mind than dangers which are hidden (and which, therefore, pass out of that category when revealed), but that the ultimate test he considered applicable to all cases within the rules was one of reasonable care. [24] In concluding his judgment His Lordship continued: And I think that, in so far as the duty of the invitor has been described as a duty to take reasonable care that his premises are reasonably safe, it has been put too high to be accurate as a general proposition. But occupiers would be placed in an intolerable position if on all occasions 8
9 their obligation to invitees was of that nature and they had to make their actual premises reasonably safe, irrespective of whether due and timely warnings or other precaution might suffice to avert the danger. I think it is clear from the terms in which Willes, J. spoke in Indermaur v Dames that, if the respondent is correct in the substance of his contention, the duty of the invitor, stated generally, is to take reasonable care to prevent damage to his invitee from the relevant danger and that does not necessarily and invariably mean making the premises reasonably safe.. it remains to choose between these conflicting views. In my opinion that propounded by the respondent is to be preferred. It accords better, as it seems to me, with the language employed by Willes, J., in Indermaur v Dames, including his use of the expression unusual danger. It respects the settled distinction between sciens and volens in this branch of our jurisprudence, a distinction which the appellants contention would, in effect, obliterate. It provides a rational criterion of responsibility over a wider range of circumstances, being equally applicable to avoidable and unavoidable dangers and to invitees of all kinds and degrees. And, not least, though in a sense this is but to enlarge on what I have just said, it applies to a relationship which, as already observed, is infinitely varied in character, a test of liability which is correspondingly flexible and adaptable. For what is reasonable in any given case must depend on all the relevant circumstances, including such factors as the nature of the invitation, the nature of the danger, the knowledge of the invitees, and the practicability of the possible means of removing or reducing the risk. So in some instances notice may suffice in certain cases, indeed, such as those relating to dangers which lurk in navigable waters, notice may be the usual as well as the best means of protecting the invitee. In other instances fencing, or watching, or repair, or re-construction may be requisite. And lastly, I see nothing in all this to bear harshly on the occupier. He controls the premises, he serves his own interest by the 9
10 invitation, he has left to him all the pleas open to one accused of negligent conduct. Why should he be exonerated, or partly exonerated, from the duty of taking reasonable care? I have been unable to find any satisfactory answer to that question in principle or authority. [25] Lord Mac Dermott s judgment dissented from the opinions of the majority of their Lordships, who held that it was the defendants duty to provide reasonably safe premises or else show that the plaintiff had accepted the risk with full knowledge of the dangers involved. [26] The Trinidad case of Hoyte v Kirpalani [1972] 19 WIR 310 applied the Indermaur principle and the decision in Stowell v Railway Executive [1949] 2 All ER 193 that the only duty imposed on the occupier is to prevent damage from unusual danger. Reference was made to the case of Fraser v Diamond Dairy Co. Ltd., a decision of the High Court in this jurisdiction. [27] I find as a fact that the defendant has met the duty to provide reasonably safe premises, and to use reasonable care to prevent damage by providing adequate warning by signs at the top of the staircase in highly visible form. In addition, I find that, having travelled on the vessel on that route on a regular basis, three times weekly over a period of about four years, in all weather conditions, the plaintiff had full knowledge of the risk inherent in travel by means of that vessel, and accepted the risk, such as it was. [28] The plaintiff s case is therefore dismissed and judgment is entered for the defendant with costs. Brian G.K. Alleyne High Court Judge 10
Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 3, Number 3 (October 1965) Article 13 Campbell v. Royal Bank of Canada [1964] S.C.R. 85 G. W. D. McKechnie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationArgued September 26, Decided. Before Judges Fuentes and Accurso.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationLiability of Storekeepers to Persons Who Come Onto the Premises to Buy
Osgoode Hall Law Journal Volume 2, Number 1 (April 1960) Article 12 Liability of Storekeepers to Persons Who Come Onto the Premises to Buy Alicia Forgie Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS EUGENE ROGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED February 19, 2013 v No. 308332 Oakland Circuit Court PONTIAC ULTIMATE AUTO WASH, L.L.C., LC No. 2011-117031-NO Defendant-Appellee.
More informationLAW REVIEW SEPTEMBER 1992 PLAYGROUND LIABILITY FOR EXPOSED CONCRETE FOOTING UNDER MONKEY BARS IN STATE PARK
PLAYGROUND LIABILITY FOR EXPOSED CONCRETE FOOTING UNDER MONKEY BARS IN STATE PARK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski Documents like the Consumer Product Safety Commission's Handbook
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando BETWEEN AND PRICESMART TRINIDAD LIMITED
TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Sub-Registry, San Fernando H.C.A. No S - 857 of 2003 BETWEEN ZORISHA KHAN Plaintiff AND PRICESMART TRINIDAD LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Justice
More informationThe answer to the above is these actions can absolve the occupier from liabilities. So what are the liabilities?
CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG Occupiers Liability Refer to Elliott & Quinn Tort Law 6 th Edition Chapter 4 Occupiers Liability (Occupiers and Occupiers are the same in the legal title) Have you questioned
More informationREMOTENESS OF DAMAGES
REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES certainly now the rule about liability for the tort of negligence and it is a matter of convenience whether we say that where the damage is not of this kind there may be a breach
More informationBerger, Nazarian, Leahy,
UNREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2067 September Term, 2014 UNIVERSITY SPECIALTY HOSPITAL, INC. v. STACEY RHEUBOTTOM Berger, Nazarian, Leahy, JJ. Opinion by Nazarian, J. Filed:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOHN DRUMM, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 22, 2005 v No. 252223 Oakland Circuit Court BIRMINGHAM PLACE, d/b/a PAUL H. LC No. 2003-047021-NO JOHNSON, INC., and
More informationPlaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. This matter is before the court on motions for summary judgment by both
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. WILLIAM HOOPS, v. Plaintiff, DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PR RESTAURANTS LLC, d/b/a PANERA BREAD, and CORNERBRooK LLC, Defendants. I. BEFORE THE COURT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS MARSHA PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2005 v No. 250418 Wayne Circuit Court STC, INC., d/b/a MCDONALD S and STATE LC No. 02-229289-NO FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
More informationBED TIME FOR HOLDEN? THE LOCAL STANDARDS ARGUMENTS IN A POST EVANS v KOSMAR LANDSCAPE.
[2010] T RAVEL L AW Q UARTERLY 83 BED TIME FOR HOLDEN? THE LOCAL STANDARDS ARGUMENTS IN A POST EVANS v KOSMAR LANDSCAPE. Case analysis: Trevor Griffin v My Travel UK Limited, [2009] NIQB 98 Roger Dowd
More informationIllinois Official Reports
Illinois Official Reports Appellate Court Bulduk v. Walgreen Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 150166 Appellate Court Caption SAIME SEBNEM BULDUK and ABDULLAH BULDUK, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALGREEN COMPANY, an
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN DUKHARAN DHABAN. And THE PORT AUTHORITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (PATT)
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CV 2008-01684 BETWEEN DUKHARAN DHABAN CLAIMANT And THE PORT AUTHORITY OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO (PATT) THE SEAMEN AND WATERFRONT WORKER S TRADE
More informationS08G1934. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC. v. BROWN. Accidents happen. But many accidents can be prevented, or at least
In the Supreme Court of Georgia Decided: June 1, 2009 S08G1934. AMERICAN MULTI-CINEMA, INC. v. BROWN. SEARS, Chief Justice. Accidents happen. But many accidents can be prevented, or at least rendered substantially
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE JOHN LEWIS
ST VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO.88 OF 1999 BETWEEN: FITZROY MC KREE Plaintiff and JOHN LEWIS Appearances: Paula David for the Plaintiff John Bayliss Frederick for
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN ADRIANA RALPH LEE RALPH AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CIVIL APPEAL No. 98 of 2011 CV 2008-04642 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN ADRIANA RALPH LEE RALPH AND APPELLANTS/CLAIMANTS WEATHERSHIELD SYSTEMS CARIBBEAN LIMITED RESPONDENT/
More informationNOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT SKALA, Appellant, v. Case No. 2D12-1331 LYONS HERITAGE
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LAWRENCE LOVELAND, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 18, 2008 v No. 278497 Kent Circuit Court SPECTRUM HEALTH, SPECTRUM HEALTH LC No. 05-012014-NO HOSPITAL, and
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS REBECCA WAREING, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 12, 2016 v No. 325890 Ingham Circuit Court ELLIS PARKING COMPANY, INC. and ELLIS LC No. 2013-001257-NO PARKING
More informationSwain v Waverley Municipal Council
[2005] HCA 4 (High Court of Australia) (relevant to Chapter 6, under new heading Role of Judge and Jury, on p 256) In a negligence trial conducted before a judge and jury, questions of law are decided
More informationLiability for Injuries Caused by Dogs. Jonathan Owen
Liability for Injuries Caused by Dogs Jonathan Owen Introduction 1. This article addressed the liability for injuries caused by dogs, such as when a person is bitten, or knocked over by a dog. Such cases,
More informationIngles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000
Ingles v. The Corporation of the City of Toronto Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada dated March 2, 2000 (City Council at its regular meeting held on October 3, 4 and 5, 2000, and its Special Meetings
More informationTorts - Duty of Occupier to Social Guests
Louisiana Law Review Volume 19 Number 4 June 1959 Torts - Duty of Occupier to Social Guests Ben W. Lightfoot Repository Citation Ben W. Lightfoot, Torts - Duty of Occupier to Social Guests, 19 La. L. Rev.
More informationHONE v GOING PLACES. 1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: I will ask Lord Justice Longmore to give the first judgment.
HONE v GOING PLACES 1. LORD JUSTICE HENRY: I will ask Lord Justice Longmore to give the first judgment. 2. LORD JUSTICE LONGMORE: The defendant travel agent, the respondent to this appeal, under the name
More informationNEGLIGENCE. All four of the following must be demonstrated for a legal claim of negligence to be successful:
NEGLIGENCE WHAT IS NEGLIGENCE? Negligence is unintentional harm to others as a result of an unsatisfactory degree of care. It occurs when a person NEGLECTS to do something that a reasonably prudent person
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No Non-Argument Calendar. D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv RNS.
Case: 17-14819 Date Filed: 08/14/2018 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 17-14819 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-22810-RNS
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 23, 2015; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2013-CA-001706-MR JANICE WARD APPELLANT APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JAMES M. SHAKE,
More informationLIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF VESSEL OWNERS
Yale Law Journal Volume 16 Issue 2 Yale Law Journal Article 2 1906 LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF VESSEL OWNERS Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/ylj Recommended Citation
More informationBy NONSO ROBERT ATTOH
By NONSO ROBERT ATTOH Have you ever wondered why big departmental shops like Shoprite, MTN etal always have cleaners at regular intervals mopping the floors of their stores? Maybe you had thought it was
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS FATEN YOUSIF, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED August 16, 2005 v No. 246680 Macomb Circuit Court WALLED MONA, LC No. 02-001903-NO Defendant-Appellee. ON REMAND Before:
More informationLAW REVIEW MARCH 1992 SWIMMING POOL NOT "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" IN TEEN TRESPASSER DIVING INJURY
SWIMMING POOL NOT "ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE" IN TEEN TRESPASSER DIVING INJURY James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski There is a popular misconception that landowners will be liable for maintaining
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. WEBSTER JORDAN Claimant. and. DIPCON ENGINEERING SERVICES LIMITED Defendant
ST. VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CIVIL SUIT NO. SVGHCV0395 / 1996 BETWEEN: Comment [BA1]: Level 1: Press ALT 1. Level 2: Press ALT 2 Level 3: Press ALT 3.. Level 4: Press ALT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS STEVEN D AGOSTINI, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 1, 2005 v No. 250896 Macomb Circuit Court CLINTON GROVE CONDOMINIUM LC No. 02-001704-NO ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationLAWATYOURFINGERTIPS BY JAMES GRAFTON RANDALL. Filed 4/25/16 Cohen v. Shemesh CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT AFFIRMED WHEN PLAINTIFF CLAIMS HE FELL ON STAIRS. PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE THAT AB- SENCE OF HANDRAIL CAUSED HIS FALL OR THAT THERE WAS A CODE VIOLA- TION LAWATYOURFINGERTIPS
More informationRANDOLPH RUSSELL. 2011: April 20th DECISION
THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES HIGH COURT CIVIL CLAIM NO. 227 OF 2008 BETWEEN: THELMA HALL NEE RUSSELL EWART RUSSELL (Attorney on Record
More informationOntario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) BARBARA DOWDS. - and - SCHEDULE A PLAINTIFF S CLAIM
Court File No. 12345/12 B E T W E E N : Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Small Claims Court) BARBARA DOWDS - and - Plaintiff DESIGNER SUNROOMS AND ADDITIONS o/b 1738848 ONTARIO LTD. Defendant SCHEDULE
More informationTao Niu v Sasha Realty LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31182(U) June 22, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: /2013 Judge: Joan M.
Tao Niu v Sasha Realty LLC 2016 NY Slip Op 31182(U) June 22, 2016 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 159128/2013 Judge: Joan M. Kenney Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv AOR
Case: 16-15491 Date Filed: 11/06/2017 Page: 1 of 7 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 16-15491 D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-61734-AOR CAROL GORCZYCA, versus
More informationCASE NO. 1D Charles F. Beall, Jr. of Moore, Hill & Westmoreland, P.A., Pensacola, for Appellant.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA JOHN R. FERIS, JR., v. Appellant, NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CASE NO. 1D12-4633
More informationCase 1:18-cv MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case 1:18-cv-21859-MGC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/09/2018 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO.: MAUREEN FISHER, vs. Plaintiff, OCEANIA
More informationGENE ROBERT HERR, II OPINION BY v. Record No JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 FRANCES STUART WHEELER
Present: All the Justices GENE ROBERT HERR, II OPINION BY v. Record No. 051825 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. September 15, 2006 FRANCES STUART WHEELER FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ALBEMARLE COUNTY Paul
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE. Cecil W. Crowson Plaintiff/Appellant, )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE FILED September 17, 1997 EDNA DANIELS, ) ) Cecil W. Crowson Plaintiff/Appellant, ) Appellate Court Clerk ) Davidson Circuit ) No. 92C-215
More informationArgued January 11, 2017 Decided. Before Judges Accurso and Manahan.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding
More informationTorts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES. Negligence
Torts I review session November 20, 2017 SLIDES Negligence 1 Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff Breach of duty Actual causation Proximate causation Damages Negligence Duty of care owed to plaintiff
More informationJUNE 2012 LAW REVIEW NO LIABILITY FOR OBVIOUS PLAYGROUND FALL DANGER
NO LIABILITY FOR OBVIOUS PLAYGROUND FALL DANGER James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski As illustrated by the cases described herein, a review of reported court decisions involving landowner
More informationNON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Appellee No WDA 2014
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 DIANE FORD Appellant IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA RED ROBIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., T/D/B/A RED ROBIN GOURMET BURGERS, INC., T/D/B/A RED
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE CLAIM NO. CV 2015-02046 BETWEEN NATALIE CHIN WING Claimant AND MARITIME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Defendant Before the Honourable Mr.
More informationOccupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957
Occupiers' Liability Act (Northern Ireland) 1957 1957 CHAPTER 25 An Act to amend the law as to the liability of occupiers and others for injury or damage resulting to persons or goods lawfully on any land
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. Between ANDY MARCELLE. And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO
THE REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV 2013 02048 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE Between ANDY MARCELLE Claimant And THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Defendant Before the Honourable Mr Justice
More informationStandard of Care A Comparative Case Study. Colleen Sinclair City of Calgary Law Department
Standard of Care A Comparative Case Study Colleen Sinclair City of Calgary Law Department Occupiers Liability Act Duty of Care to Visitors 5. An occupier of premises owes a duty to every visitor on the
More informationLAW REVIEW JANUARY 1987 MUST LANDOWNER PROTECT MOONING REVELER FROM HIMSELF? James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.
MUST LANDOWNER PROTECT MOONING REVELER FROM HIMSELF? James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1987 James C. Kozlowski The very successful 1986 Congress for Recreation and Parks in Anaheim, California is history.
More informationIN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Carver Moore and La Tonya : Reese Moore, : : Appellants : : v. : No. 1598 C.D. 2009 : The School District of Philadelphia : Argued: May 17, 2010 and URS Corporation
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. No ROBERT HASTY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 03-30884 United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED November 2, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk ROBERT HASTY, Plaintiff - Appellant,
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 07-180 BARBARA ARDOIN VERSUS LEWISBURG WATER SYSTEM ********** APPEAL FROM THE TWENTY-SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF ST. LANDRY, NO. 05-C-5228-B
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JOSEPH KOSMALSKI and KATHY KOSMALSKI, on behalf of MARILYN KOSMALSKI, a Minor, FOR PUBLICATION March 4, 2004 9:05 a.m. Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 240663 Ogemaw Circuit
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CATHIE PULLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED November 17, 2016 v No. 328202 Genesee Circuit Court CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY, LC No. 14-102857-NO Defendant-Appellee.
More informationREPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION AND
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CvA. No. 174 of 1999 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO ELECTRICITY COMMISSION APPELLANT AND JOHN MORRISON AND LYNDA MORRISON RESPONDENTS CORAM: S. SHARMA,
More informationLAWRENCE v NCL (BAHAMAS) LIMITED [2017] EWCA Civ 2222
LAWRENCE v NCL (BAHAMAS) LIMITED [2017] EWCA Civ 2222 Lord Justice Hamblen: Introduction 1. This is a renewed application for permission to appeal against a decision of the Admiralty Registrar, Jervis
More informationBut Baby, it s Bad Out There? Claims Arising from Ice on Private Premises. By Philip Turton
But Baby, it s Bad Out There? Claims Arising from Ice on Private Premises By Philip Turton Looks like a Cold, Cold Winter Introduction 1. Just as it seems that a winter almost arctic in comparison to its
More informationEASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL SAINT CHRISTOPHER AND NEVIS SKBHCVAP2014/0017 BETWEEN: In the matter of Condominium Property registered as Condominium #5 known as Nelson Spring Condominium
More informationDISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DAVIE PLAZA, LLC, Appellant, v. EMMANUEL IORDANOGLU, as personal representative of the Estate of MIKHAEL MAROUDIS, Appellee. No. 4D16-1846
More informationLAW REVIEW JUNE 1992 RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK
RAINWATER ACCUMULATED IN CLOSED CITY POOL RAISES ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE RISK James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1992 James C. Kozlowski The March 1992 law column entitled "Swimming Pool Not 'Attractive Nuisance'
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS WILLIAM LUCKETT IV, a Minor, by his Next Friends, BEVERLY LUCKETT and WILLIAM LUCKETT, UNPUBLISHED March 25, 2014 Plaintiffs-Appellants, v No. 313280 Macomb Circuit Court
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL. and RYAN OLLIVIERRE
SAINT VINCENT AND THE GRENADINES CIVIL APPEAL NO.27 OF 2001 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL BETWEEN: SYLVANUS LESLIE and RYAN OLLIVIERRE Appellant/Plaintiff Respondent/Defendant Before: The Hon. Sir Dennis Byron
More informationMARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW. 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the October/November 2013 series 9084 LAW 9084/42 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark scheme is published as an aid to teachers
More informationGENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS. Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to
GENERAL CLOSING INSTRUCTIONS Members of the jury, it is now time for me to tell you the law that applies to this case. As I mentioned at the beginning of the trial, you must follow the law as I state it
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008 JALAYNA JONES ETHEREDGE and VALERIE A. VANA, Appellants. v. Case No. 5D07-3581 WALT DISNEY WORLD CO., a Florida corporation,
More informationOCTOBER 2012 LAW REVIEW OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL
OBVIOUS TREE HAZARD ON PARK SLEDDING HILL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2012 James C. Kozlowski Under traditional principles of landowner liability for negligence, the landowner generally owes a legal
More informationWhat s news in construction law 16 June 2006
2 What s news in construction law 16 June 2006 Warranties & indemnities the lessons from Ellington & Tempo services For as long as contracts have existed, issues have arisen in relation to provisions involving
More informationDECEMBER 1985 LAW REVIEW WRITTEN SUPERVISION STANDARD NOT FOLLOWED IN GOLF MISHAP. James C. Kozlowski, J.D James C.
WRITTEN SUPERVISION STANDARD NOT FOLLOWED IN GOLF MISHAP James C. Kozlowski, J.D. 1985 James C. Kozlowski The Brahatcek case described herein provides a good illustration of negligence liability based
More informationPresent: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J.
Present: Hassell, C.J., Lacy, Keenan, Koontz, Lemons, and Agee, JJ., and Compton, S.J. CITY OF LYNCHBURG OPINION BY SENIOR JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 042069 June 9, 2005 JUDY BROWN FROM
More informationSUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Uzsoki v McArthur [2007] QCA 401 PARTIES: KATHY UZSOKI (plaintiff/respondent) v JOHN McARTHUR (defendant/applicant) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 5896 of 2007 DC No 1699 of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS LARRY JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED October 15, 2002 v No. 232374 Wayne Circuit Court WILLIAM TILTON, LC No. 00-000573-NO Defendant-Appellee. Before: Fitzgerald,
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT LAFAYETTE OILMAN S SPORTING CLAYS SHOOT, INC. ET AL.
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 05-1285 F. M. BUTCH ROBERSON AND PAMELA ROBERSON VERSUS LAFAYETTE OILMAN S SPORTING CLAYS SHOOT, INC. ET AL. ************** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
More informationAccess to an air traffic control tower
Determination No. 2001/10 Access to an air traffic control tower 1 THE MATTER TO BE DETERMINED 1.1 The matter before the Authority is a dispute about a territorial authority s decision to refuse building
More informationv No Kent Circuit Court
S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S JENNA S. AFHOLTER, also known as JENNA S. AFFHOLTER, UNPUBLISHED March 8, 2018 Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 336059 Kent Circuit Court PHILLIP C.
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MOHANLAL RAMCHARAN AND CARLYLE AMBROSE SERRANO
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO CV2011-02646 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN MOHANLAL RAMCHARAN AND Claimant CARLYLE AMBROSE SERRANO Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES Appearances:
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JACINTA GROOMS and GREG GROOMS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, UNPUBLISHED December 17, 2013 v No. 311243 Oakland Circuit Court INDEPENDENCE VILLAGE, LC No. 2011-116335-NO and
More informationOCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT
LAWS OF KENYA OCCUPIERS LIABILITY ACT CHAPTER 34 Revised Edition 2012 [1980] Published by the National Council for Law Reporting with the Authority of the Attorney-General www.kenyalaw.org CAP. 34 [Rev.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 18, 2006 Session
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 18, 2006 Session RUBY POPE v. ERVIN BLAYLOCK, ET AL. A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Shelby County No. CT-003735-03 The Honorable James
More informationMARK SCHEME for the May/June 2011 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW. 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE INTERNATIONAL EXAMINATIONS GCE Advanced Level MARK SCHEME for the May/June 2011 question paper for the guidance of teachers 9084 LAW 9084/43 Paper 4, maximum raw mark 75 This mark
More informationOCTOBER 1986 LAW REVIEW REC USE LAW APPLIES TO PUBLIC LAND IN NY, NE, ID, OH, & WA. James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D James C.
REC USE LAW APPLIES TO PUBLIC LAND IN NY, NE, ID, OH, & WA James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 1986 James C. Kozlowski Under a recreational use statute, the landowner owes no duty of care to recreational users
More informationMay 24, Supreme Court. No Appeal. (PC ) Pocahontas Cooley : v. : Paul Kelly. :
May 24, 2017 Supreme Court No. 2014-337-Appeal. (PC 07-2627) Pocahontas Cooley : v. : Paul Kelly. : NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Rhode Island Reporter. Readers
More informationTorts. Louisiana Law Review. William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law Center
Louisiana Law Review Volume 47 Number 2 Developments in the Law, 1985-1986 - Part I November 1986 Torts William E. Crawford Louisiana State University Law Center Repository Citation William E. Crawford,
More informationProfiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors
Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working directors Author: Tim Wardell Special Counsel Edwards Michael Lawyers Profiting from your own mistakes: Common law liability and working
More informationIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN AND. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Third Defendant BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE JUDITH JONES
REPUBLIC OF TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO Claim No. CV2008-02722 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN ANA CAROLINA BARRY-LASO First Named Claimant YANIK QUENSEL Second Named Claimant AND TOBAGO HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
More informationTHE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE AND ST. LUCIA ELECTRICITY SERVICES LTD AND
SAINT LUCIA Claim No. SLUHCV2002/1144 BETWEEN: THE EASTERN CARIBBEAN SUPREME COURT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE PEOPLE S DISCOUNT DRUGS LTD Claimant Consolidated with SLUHCV2003/0345 AND ST. LUCIA ELECTRICITY
More informationCommonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals
RENDERED: JANUARY 6, 2017; 10:00 A.M. TO BE PUBLISHED Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2015-CA-000926-MR SHERRY G. MCCOY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM MARTIN CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JOHN DAVID
More informationJudges, Parliament and the Government the new relationship Transcript of a lecture by Rt Hon Lord Woolf
Judges, Parliament and the Government the new relationship Transcript of a lecture by Rt Hon Lord Woolf Thank you very much for that over-generous introduction. I m afraid I don t share your confidence
More informationFILED JANUARY 3, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
FILED JANUARY 3, 2019 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE MICHAEL CLARKE, an individual, v. Appellant,
More informationGeorge Mason University School of Recreation, Health & Tourism Court Reports American Powerlifting Association v. Cotillo (Md.
PARTICIPANT ASSUMES RISK OF INJURY INTEGRAL TO SPORT AMERICAN POWERLIFTING ASSOCIATION v. COTILLO Court of Appeals of Maryland October 16, 2007 [Note: Attached opinion of the court has been edited and
More informationJANUARY 1998, NRPA LAW REVIEW DANGEROUS TREES POSE A FORESEEABLE RISK OF INJURY
DANGEROUS TREES POSE A FORESEEABLE RISK OF INJURY As illustrated by the following description of reported court decisions, a landowner may be liable for negligence where injury is caused by a dangerous
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS GAILA MARIE MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION July 11, 2006 9:05 a.m. V No. 259228 Kent Circuit Court THE RAPID INTER-URBAN TRANSIT LC No. 03-001526-NO PARTNERSHIP
More informationJOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No November 1, 1996
Present: All the Justices JOANN E. LEWIS OPINION BY JUSTICE A. CHRISTIAN COMPTON v. Record No. 960421 November 1, 1996 CARPENTER COMPANY FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND T. J. Markow, Judge
More informationFall 1997 December 20, 1997 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1
Professor DeWolf Torts I Fall 1997 December 20, 1997 SAMPLE ANSWER TO MID-TERM EXAM QUESTION 1 This case is based upon McLeod v. Cannon Oil Corp., 603 So.2d 889 (Ala. 1992). In that case the court reversed
More informationJULY 2017 LAW REVIEW CRASH ON CHALLENGING MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL
CRASH ON CHALLENGING MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2017 James C. Kozlowski In determining negligence liability, we are generally held to the reasonable person standard. What would
More informationChecklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity. Subject matter MA COTA Maintenance of highways and bridges
Checklist XX - Sources of Municipal and Personal Liability and Immunity See also extensive case law in this volume under the sections identified below, and in the introduction to Part XV. A. Public highways
More information2015 PA Super 8. Appeal from the Order Dated October 10, 2012 In the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County Civil Division at No(s):
2015 PA Super 8 GUADALUPE REINOSO & EDMUNDO DOMINGUEZ, H/W IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellant V. HERITAGE WARMINSTER SPE LLC V. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORES, INC. T/A KOHL'S AND LOTS & US, INC.
More information